19 August 2013

Studies: Christians Are At Present The Most Persecuted Religious Group Worldwide

Egyptian crucifixion of Christian by Islamists

By Peter Berger

Both Roman Catholic and Evangelical Protestant media have for years
been drawing public attention to the persecution of Christians in many
countries. Secular media have been less attentive; some have ascribed
this to an anti-Christian bias; I rather doubt this—more likely it comes
from the fact that many otherwise well-informed journalists are less
informed on religious matters. Outside the denominational media, two
individuals have done more than anyone else to cover this phenomenon:
Paul Marshall (of the Hudson Institute) and Brian Grim (of the Pew
Research Center). All the data I have seen indicate that Christians are
at present the most persecuted religious group world-wide. Grim recently
testified about this before the European Parliament: He stated that
Christians are directly harassed by governments in 102 countries and by
“social actors” (read lynch mobs) in 101 countries. There has also been
decent coverage by the United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom, the independent agency set up with government
funding, in addition to the bureau within the State Department that
reports on religious freedom worldwide every year.

In its 2013 report the Commission has a list of 8 countries (which
include China) designated “countries of particular concern” (CPCs, who
are reported as such to the President and the Congress, for possible US
government actions). The 2013 list includes 3 Muslim-majority countries:
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. There is an additional list of countries
heading toward CPC status, including 4 Muslim-majority or heavily Muslim
countries: Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria (its northen part), and Pakistan. It is
fair to conclude that Christians have most to be afraid of from actions
by Muslims, be it by courts, government policies, or by mobs of enraged
Muslims encouraged by police inaction.

Rather than commenting on the Commission report country by country, I
will look at a one day of reporting, on July 31, 2013, in Law and
Religion Headlines, the online publication out of Emory University that I
have found very useful as a reliable source of information on these
issues. That date’s issue includes the following stories about
persecution of Christians by Muslims in different countries.

One story
comes from Pakistan (whose population is 96% Muslim, 2% Christian,
cited by the Commission for “systematic, egregious intolerance toward
minority faith groups”, which, by the way, includes attacks by Sunnis on
Shia Muslims). An Adventist Christian was sentenced to life
imprisonment for “blasphemy” against the Prophet Muhammad. In the
perverse legal system of Pakistan, this sentence could actually be
construed as lenient—the law provides a sentence of life imprisonment or
death (given the condition of Pakistani prisons, there may not be much
difference between these two sentences). The case in this story is not
an isolated event. Prosecution for “blasphemy” is constant threat
against Christians in Pakistan (as it is in other Muslim-majority
countries). Just what is defined as “blasphemy” is very vague. It might,
for example, include a simple statement by a Christian that, according
to his faith, the Quran (which Muslims believe is “the seal of
prophecy”) does not supersede the New Testament. The issue is not
limited to Pakistan. It should be noted that Muslim states and
organizations have lobbied for the introduction of blasphemy laws in
countries that do not have them now, including even Western democracies.

Another story comes from Saudi Arabia, where the editor of social media propagating
liberal values was sentenced to 7 years in prison plus 600 lashes
(severe whipping is a common penalty in Saudi law). Oddly, he was also
convicted of “disobeying his father” (a crime in Saudi Arabia).
Apparently the editor is not a Christian. But the liberal values he
advocates of course go against the fierce establishment of Wahhabi Islam
in the Kingdom, enforced by the feared “religious police” (mandated to
“promote the good and suppress evil”). Put simply, religious freedom in
Saudi Arabia is nil. No Christian worship is permitted, no Christian
clergy are admitted, neither is any Christian literature. Foreign
Christians are allowed to huddle together in embassies or private homes.

Northern Nigeria has for some time been a particularly dangerous
territory for Christians. The country is about 50% Christian (mainly in
the south) and 50% Muslim in the north, where a slow-burning civil war
between the two religions has been going on. The aggression has come
from the Muslim side, though Christians (with some help from the central
government) have been organizing to defend themselves. Boko Haram is a
radical Muslim organization (“boko” is a term designating any Western
influence, including through Christianity; “haram” is an Islamic term
for “forbidden”). Activists linked to Boko Haram have been staging
ongoing murderous attacks against Christian churches, homes and
individuals; an estimated 3,600 lives have been lost to this carnage
since 2009.

Let me add some other Muslim countries here. Saudi Arabia and Iran
are already listed as CPCs in the Commission report. The state of
freedom of religion in Iran is roughly the same as that in Saudi Arabia.
Christians here too are threatened with prosecution for “blasphemy” and
attempting to convert Muslims; Christian pastors are lingering in
prison. Christians are not the only victims. Jews, while in theory
protected as “People of the Book” have been prosecuted for allegedly
being Israeli agents. The most savage persecution (including executions
and multiple violations of civil rights) has been directed, since the
beginnings of the Islamic Republic, against Baha’is (a nineteenth
offspring of Shia Islam that still constitutes a sizable minority in the
country, as well as having some 5 million adherents worldwide).

Egypt and Iraq are included in the Commission’s list of countries
heading toward CPC status. Since the outbreak of the so-called Arab
Spring (increasingly making that phrase doubtful), Muslim activists have
been attacking Christians, especially the Coptic minority (which
consists of about 10% of the Egyptian population).

Iraq affords a specially depressing picture: In addition to the
increasingly bloody civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims, Christians
have been repeatedly attacked by Muslim terrorists. Iraq used to be the
home of some of the most ancient Christian churches—Orthodox, some in
communion with Rome; and so-called Oriental churches (those who
dissented from the Christological decisions of the early ecumenical
councils). Christians have emigrated in large numbers, and the Christian
presence in Iraq is rapidly dwindling. This situation is getting worse
with the departure of American troops, and the increasingly anti-Sunni
policies of the Maliki government.

Let me also mention two other countries – Syria and Palestine. The
Assad regime in Syria has (for its own reasons) been protective of
Christians, who have tended to support it in the current civil war. With
the growing presence of radical Islamists in the rebel forces, the
situation of Christians in Syria is becoming ever more precarious, and
large numbers are emigrating. Palestinians within the State of Israel
have little to fear from the Israeli government, which is solicitous of
its Christian citizens, partly because Evangelical Christians are the
most reliable Gentile pro-Israel constituency in America; the government
is greatly interested in keeping their good will, at least if they
don’t try to convert Jews too openly (some of them, alas, try do this).
Of course Palestinian Israelis suffer from the same discriminations as
their Muslim fellow-citizens, but that has ethnic rather than religious
sources. It is different in the Palestinian Territories, where radical
Islamism (especially as advocated by Hamas, which controls the Gaza
Strip) is threatening Christians. Here too there has been strong
emigration, from all groups within the Christian community—Orthodox,
“Oriental”, Catholic, Protestant. Not long ago the mayor of Bethlehem,
commenting on this emigration, envisaged a near future when there would
be no more Christians in the city of Jesus’ birth.

I’m sorry to say that, when it comes to the persecution of
Christians, Muslims head any credible list. But they are not alone. Open
Doors International, an Evangelical online monitor of these
developments, lists India among 50 countries where life is difficult for
Christians. Hindu militants have been attacking Christian worship
services and pastors, and have been driving Christians from urban homes
and villages, with agencies of the state (including the police) often
standing by passively. Christians are also threatened by possible
prosecution for engaging in “forcible conversions” of Hindus, which is
illegal and defined so vaguely that even the most innocent conversations
with Hindus can cause prosecution. The overall political background is
that Hindu nationalists are an important constituency of the BJP, the
major opposition party. Thus Hindu nationalists, with their ideology of
hindutva (Hindu religion as the core of Indian civilization), are most
influential in states with BJP governments.

China has a complicated system of regulating religion. The Communist
party, still officially committed to Marxist atheism, is now, I think,
more motivated by an essentially Confucian attitude to religion. The
attitude is similar to a policy of disease control: Religion is at its
core superstitious and potentially dangerous; if it cannot be
eradicated, it must be tightly controlled. The regime insists that, if
they are to be allowed, religious communities must be registered with
the state. Many do; some refuse. Among the latter are so-called
Protestant “house churches”, and an ‘underground” wing of the Catholic
Church, which insists on primary allegiance to Rome. Unregistered
churches are always under the threat of harassment or prosecution.
National policies toward Christians keep changing, but there are
differences between regions in that immense country. Open Doors
Internatiomnal reports on the case of the Shouwang Church, a large
unregistered Protestant congregation in Beijing. It was denied a permit
for a place of worship, was forced to conduct services outdoors, which
led to police harassment and some arrests.

Russia continues to be an interesting case in terms of religious
freedom, or rather, restrictions on it. The Russian Orthodox Church,
while not quite re-established as the state religion, has moved ever
closer to the government, especially under the Putin administration.
(Putin, truthfully or not, has claimed to have been secretly baptized by
his grandmother, and likes to be seen devotedly crossing himself while
attending Orthodox services.) While the Russian Orthodox Church enjoys
distinctive privileges, protection is given to other religions with long
roots in Russian history, notably Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Roman
Catholicism, and Protestants with a similarly long presence in Russia
(notably the Baptists). But the Moscow Patriarchate was annoyed when the
Vatican set up Catholic dioceses on Russian territory. Its particular
ire has been directed against Evangelical Protestants, especially
Pentecostals, who have been actively seeking converts (in the words of
an official of the Patriarchate, “stealing Orthodox souls”). The
government, in the old tradition of collaboration (sinfonia) between
state and church, has obliged the Patriarchate by harassing and
prosecuting unregistered groups.

I feel that I should not end this report without mentioning
allegations of violations of religious freedom in Western
democracies—the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada (which
sometimes tries to show its difference from the big brother to the south
by being more politically correct than this neighbor). In the US, there
have been two sources pushing the alleged violations: those with very
strict interpretations of the First Amendment (I call them Kemalists,
with a “disease control” attitude similar to that of Kemal Ataturk, the
father of the Turkish Republic) who tie up the federal courts with
demands to remove Christmas crèches from public properties, and some
members of the gay movement, going after alleged “homophobes” in the
name of laws against “hate speech”. There have been similar efforts in
the UK and in Canada (most recently, after the British Parliament
legalized same-sex marriage, a gay couple moved to sue a local Anglican
parish for refusing to host its wedding service). In the US, of course,
the Catholic Church unleashed a campaign for religious freedom in
response to the Obama administration seeking to force Catholic
institutions to include contraception in their employees’ health
insurance plans. Most recently this issue has taken a new turn:
Corporations owned by Evangelical Protestants, who freely advertise
their faith on company products, have claimed exemption from the
contraception mandate on First Amendment grounds. Some court decisions
thus far have gone in both directions. But one court refused to accept
the claim, because the law governing corporations make a sharp
distinction between the corporation as a “legal person” and the persons
of the individuals holding shares: The “legal person” is a fiction, not a
real person, who can claim the right of free exercise. These are the
questions that make lawyers happy, and rich.

I would not want to trivialize the issue as it has been raised in
Western democracies. These are real issues, and my sympathies are
generally with those (including Catholic bishops and Evangelical
business people) who fiercely defend a broad understanding of the First
Amendment. American law has long been accommodating toward citizens
claiming exemptions on religious grounds—refusing to take oaths on the
Bible, to salute the flag, to serve in the military. I would hate to see
a change in this propensity to respect minority religious values. At
the same time, it seems to me a sense of proportion is to be recommended
here. I’m sure that Christians in any of the countries mentioned in the
above stories, would love to exchange their experiences of persecution
for the comparatively mild violations in Western democracies.

When it comes to domestic law in the US and in Western and Central
Europe, I would have considerable confidence in the courts and their
diligence in defending religious freedom. I am less confident in the
ability of these countries advocating religious freedom in other parts
of the world. Foreign policy must operate under the iron laws of
national interest. Diplomats are in the business of having coffee, tea
or drinks with tyrants. Once the issues touching directly on national
interest have been discussed, it is not easy to say, “by the way you
should be nicer to your religious minorities”. But I would not want to
denigrate the work of such agencies as the US Commission on
International Religious Freedom. There are limits to Realpolitik in a
democracy, whose citizens want their values to be heard in the halls of
power.